It’s completely a coincidence that all games are no longer working in Lutris here, on multiple machines, after upgrading from 0.5.19 to 0.5.20. Weird.
I downgraded and everything works again. I did not try 0.5.22 or the quickly removed 0.5.21.
Tell me to not use your software without telling me to not use your software.
I already stopped using Lutris for a while. Most of the things I try to install with it straight up don’t work anymore.
Edit:
Anyway, is there an alternative to Lutris, besides installing games and programs with Steam?
wine bottles
Bottles or Heoric Game Launcher
How to drive off users and contributors in one easy step!
is lutris slop now
i can’t help but notice quite a lot of LLM generated commits, is lutris slop now or will
@strycoresee the error of their waysRegardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
shame is a powerful weapon
i for one intend to keep making people feel bad for using slop generators
But as you can see, the maintainer didn’t stop using them and will also now not disclose which commits have them. Humans are emotional creatures and part of being rational is acknowledging that. Folks can be critical of AI usage while phrasing the issue more tactfully and would likely see more success when doing so.
Well, it used to be at least
I had a donation to Lutris, and was already skeptical of the dev’s ability to maintain their huge (and very buggy) python/gtk3 codebase. Now I know that giving money to the dev would likely makes things bigger and buggier. This is useful information, and it’s better to talk about it somewhere where the dev will respond and relatively few bystanders will hear the discussion.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t ever raise this sort of thing as an issue (in general I think issues should only be for bugs, but the annoying reality is there’s rarely a better place for discussions that get visibility), I’m saying the specific content of the message is the problem. There are ways to critique the usage of AI and discuss alternatives that wouldn’t be an issue.
For example,
I see a lot of AI code is used in this repository. AI code is bad because (reasons the user believes it is bad here). Could you please share why/what AI is being used for specifically so we can try to remove the necessity?
Aside
I’m not saying AI code isn’t bad, I’m just saying different people think it’s bad for different reasons. The specific problem the reporter has with AI code may warrant a specific response.
Perhaps more maintainers are needed, maybe someone more familiar with third party libs being used could mentor, etc. From there it really depends on what the response from the maintainer is.
What’s not helpful and never going to get anyone to change their opinion is just saying things like “when will
@mentionsee the error of their ways”. As humans we respond to this by digging our heels in, which as seen in the issue the maintainer did by becoming less transparent about where AI is and is not used. Had the reporter taken a more diplomatic approach they would have been more likely to get the changes they wanted.It’s also such self entitlement, they were being open about it before but had to deal with childish people like this throwing a tantrum.
If its such an issue then thank them for being honest, don’t use it and move on, no ones entitled to free software though some act like it.
Not all llm use in code gen is bad, as long as its properly reviewed and disclosed. That’s not the same as vibe coding and having no idea about the output.
Regardless of your opinion on AI, it is not productive or helpful to open this as an issue.
Disagree. It drew attention to the fact that the maintainers of lutris are of questionable character and helped people like me understand that lutris should be avoided completely.
As the maintainer said, the commits with AI code were already specified. See one here. It was never a secret.
It was my impression that the AI stuff only started with a relatively recent update
Maybe, I don’t know much about this tool or their practices. I only meant that it was factual that they were mentioning which commits had AI generated code in them.
He now removed the code authorship from Claude lmao
Hence the past tense. I think it was pretty petty to do this.
I tried Faugus for WoW and it ran like shit. I tried Lutris because it was pre-installed on Bazzite and wow was the performance better.
While it may become impossible to determine whether those digitized pixels are “real” or not, I sense that analog will be making a comeback in the not too distant future.
AI can run ~1000 times faster on analog hardware, so there’s probably a lot of research into it.
I had to google “Lutris” to remember what it was. I have it installed… I guess this post made me realize how little I use it and that I should uninstall the slop.
That’s a weird way to run a community facing project, if you want to engage the community that is.
If you treat it like your own personal hobby, you can do whatever you like.
- their repo (checked the commit graphs and basically they did most of the work, 2nd dev agree with them, covers 90%+) their choice of governance
- their repo, their choice of tooling
- I genuinely believe they think are doing “good enough” code and they are probably right about it in their context
- they do have fair points on the economical power dynamics, namely that yes Anthropic is slightly less worst than Meta, Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, etc (… but IMHO honestly that’s a damn low bar)
but also
- obfuscation rather than discussion (closed the issue and limited to maintainers only) so clearly the signal is precisely “my repo, my choice”
- no mention of the copyright or license washing
- no mention of ecological impact
so I would personally consider instead Bottles, GOG (have different problems), Steam (obviously not open source and basically monopolistic position), etc.
Overall I think preventing discussion is healthy (even though sadly sometimes needed, here I lack context, maybe the issue poster did this numerous time on other platforms, title definitely was provocative) but removing provenance is NEVER a good choice. They want to use Claude on their repo? Absolutely fine (even though not to me) but hiding it makes it instantly untrustworthy to me. In fact I even argued in the past that even though I personally do not use GenAI/LLMs (for coding or otherwise) except for testing it should always be disclosed precisely so that others can make THEIR choice in consequence, including using or contributing, cf https://fabien.benetou.fr/Analysis/AgainstPoorArtificialIntelligencePractices
GOG (have different problems)
but GOG is not open source too (if you use GOG Galaxy)
Yes, that’s part of the problems, thanks for clarifying
Yw
FFS i just move two giant modlists from my windows migration…
This is the way.
Other cool techniques:
- keep a private git repo with CLAUDE.md etc and then push into the public repo without those files.
- insert bugs and typos that are so clumsy no AI would ever do them
So it’s all compromised, gotcha.
Lol
I think there is a very practical reason to attribute AI contributions: AI models are improving in ability. Being able to know when and what contributed the code, would allow people to more easily deploy newer AI to examine the work of previous AI, to improve or replace it. Plus, some AI will likely be specialized in specific domains, so you wouldn’t want different agents from stepping on each other’s toes. Something oriented around GUI design, probably shouldn’t be handling graphics optimizations.
This removal of authorship will just make things more difficult in the long run.
I’m kind of torn on this, because on the one side I can see the developer’s troubles. If they have 30 years of experience and they considered the impact of using it they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically. Indeed many of the issues people have with AI are a kind of redirected anger, when really they are issues with capitalism, incompetency, or digital illiteracy. And the person posting the issue seems purely there to fan that flame rather than actually contribute. Something maintainers could use just as little as slop authored PRs.
But on the other hand, being open about the usage is a must. It’s the price to pay for going against the grain. If your ideals and means are pure, they should be defendable and scrutinizable to reasonable people, and there should be no issue with that in the long term. Hiding the usage will create doubt about authorship, and make defenses harder to point at, while it won’t stop the horde.
Per the dev:
“I don’t refuse to document anything, I’m just taking full ownership of all commits. Claude is not a person (sorry to all the people named Claude) and I don’t see the point of having it in commit messages. It has a “Sent from my iphone” vibe. It’s just advertising.”
She also said something to the effect of “if you think the AI code I allow through is noticeably worse than my hand written code, you should be able to tell it apart without me labeling it. I’m tired of your bitching about it because of a tag rather than the actual content”
they will most likely know how to use it properly and ethically
I’d argue that ethical use is not possible:
- Models are trained on stolen/misappropriated/misused data
- Training involves psychologically harmful work from ghost workers
- Those services runs on infrastructure that no one wants around, and wastefully contributes to climate change/global warming
Yeah what rubs me wrong is that they went out of their way to hide it and are proud of it
It’s at times like this I like to point out examples like surgeons Ben Carr(?) and Dr. Oz as counter examples that you can be very knowledgeable about something but also very unwise or morally bankrupt it simultaneously.
